The Principal Bench of Justice Ranjit More and Member Rajinder Kashyap of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has set aside the transfer of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, Sameer Wankhede, known to have apprehended persons of high profile when he was serving as Zonal Director of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai.

Wankhede's tenure was significant for curbing the menace of illegal activities and exposing and catching hold of criminals involved in smuggling and illegal use, procurement and sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. His transfer from Mumbai to Chennai was abrupt and sudden, prompting the Tribunal to call the transfer "arbitrary" and in violation of the Department of Revenue's transfer policy. The bench also noted that the Department's actions showed bias against Wankhede.

Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede (applicant), a 2008-batch IRS officer, currently holds the position of Additional Commissioner under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. His tenure was notable for the arrest of Sameer Khan, son-in-law of a former Maharashtra Cabinet Minister, in February 2021. And the arrest of the son of a prominent Bollywood actor in the Notorious Cordelia Cruise case of October 2021, when he was Zonal Director of the NCB.

Following these high profile arrests, the applicant became the subject of a Special Enquiry Team (SET) investigation that was initiated on 16th June, 2022. It was the applicants submission that the allegations of the SET were baseless. He challenged the report of the SET before the CAT which granted him interim relief on 20th December, 2022 and subsequently became absolute on 21st August, 2023. The Bombay High Court later upheld the Tribunal’s order, confirming that Wankhede must be given an opportunity for personal hearing before any disciplinary action.

However, on 30th May, 2022, the applicant was transferred from DG, ARM Mumbai to DGTS, Chennai. He repeatedly petitioned the government to reverse the transfer, citing serious death threats to him and his family who continue to live in Mumbai while he lives in Chennai. He even alerted the Government of a serious threat to his life from a Bangladeshi national in addition to receiving serious threat mails often. However, his representations went unheard, compelling him to file the present application challenging his transfer to Chennai on legal grounds.

The application mentions that his transfer was a retaliatory action linked to his investigative work in high-profile cases as Zonal Director, NCB, Mumbai. He submitted that despite legal relief being granted to him by the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court he was transferred out of Mumbai. The application also mentions that the Transfer/Placement Guidelines, 2018 were misapplied, asserting that Para 8 of the guidelines excludes deputation periods from tenure calculations, meaning he had not exceeded the 10-year limit in Mumbai, thereby rendering his transfer unlawful. Additionally, the applicant emphasized serious threats to him and his family, including numerous death threats which he reported to Mumbai Police. The respondents ignored his representations.

He further alleged discriminatory treatment, pointing to other IRS officers who remained posted in Mumbai and Delhi NCR beyond their tenure, suggesting administrative bias and malafide intent against him.

The Union of India, through the CBIC, defended Wankhede’s transfer on grounds of administrative necessity under Para 14.3 of the Transfer Policy, which permits transfers in the public interest. They argued that government servants hold transferable posts and have no vested right to remain in a specific location. The respondents also cited disciplinary proceedings initiated against Wankhede based on CVC recommendations and his inclusion in the Agreed List for 2022-2024, indicating that pending investigations justified the transfer. Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) and State of M.P. vs. S.S. Kourav (1995), they asserted that courts should not interfere with administrative transfers unless malafide intent or policy violations are clearly established. They maintained that Wankhede’s transfer was lawful, routine, and essential to maintain departmental integrity.

After due consideration of facts and submissions, the CAT ruled that the applicant’s transfer from DGARM, Mumbai to DGTS, Chennai was arbitrary and violated the Transfer/Placement Guidelines, 2018. It held that while the government has discretionary power to transfer employees, it must follow its own policies and provide valid reasons for any deviation, which the respondents failed to do.

A report from the Additional Director General (Taxpayer Services), Chennai, found nothing adverse to report against Wankhede during his tenure and recommended for deletion of his name while reviewing the existing Agreed List in respect of Group A officers for the year 2024-25 under the jurisdiction of DGTS, CZU. His APAR for 2024 gave him a numeric rating of 9.5 describing him as an asset to the service. ‘Nothing adverse is reported against the integrity’. The Reviewing Officer mentioned him as an ‘overall outstanding officer.’’

Rejecting the respondents' arguments, The Tribunal affirmed that Wankhede had not exceeded his permissible tenure in Mumbai.

“There is no disagreement on the point that officer has All India liability to serve, however, respondents while posting the officers needs to adhere to their own policy in a fair, transparent and just manner.” noted the Bench

The Tribunal concluded that the transfer was not in accordance with the Transfer/Placement Guidelines, quashed the transfer order dated 30th May, 2022, and directed the applicant’s reinstatement to Mumbai with all consequential benefits.

Case Details: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede vs Union of India, OA No. 3677/2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ajesh Luthra and Mr. Jatin Parashar

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar